{"id":2266,"date":"2026-04-29T12:31:15","date_gmt":"2026-04-29T09:31:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/?p=2266"},"modified":"2026-04-29T12:31:15","modified_gmt":"2026-04-29T09:31:15","slug":"deglobalization-or-reglobalization","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/?p=2266","title":{"rendered":"Deglobalization or Reglobalization?"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Erkki Tuomioja<\/strong><\/p>\n

[Remarks at the Development Days Conference on Walden Bello\u2019s keynote lecture, \u201cRevisiting Deglobalization in an Era of Geopolitical Competition,\u201d University of Helsinki, 26 February 2026]<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

We are witnessing today the breakdown of the rules-based World Order, as it was established and developed after WW II on the basis of the UN Charter.<\/p>\n

This world order as designed by the victors of WW II was never perfect or equitable, starting from how it reserved special powers for the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. It did not deliver freedom from wars, which were mostly caused by the reluctance of the colonial powers to give up their system of dominance.<\/p>\n

But the system has been bettered and developed with small steps. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed in 1948 and the International Criminal Court started work in 2002 in the Hague, to mention two important steps. We are at least aware of what war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide are, even if we have failed in preventing them or bringing those responsible for them to justice.<\/p>\n

I also regard the efforts at regulating and bringing order to the world trading system, such as the founding of the World Trade Organisation, as being more positive than negative. Whatever the faults and weaknesses of the rules governing the behavior of states are \u2013 and I can agree with most of the critique presented by Walden Bello \u2013 it has become obvious today that even faulty rules are better no rules at all, now that we are seeing how countries are tearing up international treaties, imposing absurd tariffs and resorting to trade restrictions and acting in defiance of international law. This is not limited to using trade as a weapon, but also entails using arms to bring about destruction and death.<\/p>\n

I will continue by explaining what I mean by reglobalization, which I prefer as the alternative to deglobalization. This of course depends on what we understand by globalization. For me it means the irreversible growth of interdependency.<\/p>\n

The world is not what it used to be at the end of WWII. The most significant and irreversible change is population growth from the 2,3 billion people when I was born to the 8,3 billion of us today. What was still possible \u2013 leaving aside all moral and ethical considerations – in a world inhabited by a few hundred million or even a couple of billion people, such as empire building and enslaving directly or indirectly other people, is no longer possible in today\u2019s world.<\/p>\n

There are three existential threats to humankind, only one of which was mentioned by Walden Bello and only in passing. They are the threat of nuclear annihilation, climate change and the loss of biodiversity. These bind us all together irrespective of whether we are living in a Super-power with nuclear weapons, or in a small island mini-state, and whether we like it or not. This interdependence is also the case with other challenges such as managing immigration and refugee crises, or global pandemic like Covid which can be repeated at any moment.<\/p>\n

In this world the rightwing nationalist and populist reaction is, \u201cStop the world I want to get off\u201d. It can be argued that the call for deglobalization is the leftwing version of the same reaction of hankering back to a world which no longer exists and cannot be rebuilt. None of the existential threats mentioned can be countered effectively and in a sustainable manner by nation states acting on their own. They all call for close multilateral cooperation with no free riders, strict and clear rules by international treaties and organisations which are effectively monitored and have the possibility to sanction rules breakers.<\/p>\n

Globalization of the world economy, if understood as meaning reaping the benefits from an increased division of labour, has contributed to increasing global wealth and welfare. I don\u2019t think we can deny that this has meant lifting hundreds of millions of people from living in abject poverty only a few decades ago to a decent standard of living with rising life expectancy, most spectacularly in India and China, but also in many other developing countries.<\/p>\n

These undeniable gains from globalization have been overshadowed and even nullified by how this increasing wealth has been distributed more and more unequally. The worst example of this is the United States where a handful of billionaires have amassed huge concentrations of wealth, while only the top ten percent of the people have experienced any growth in their wealth and income, while the vast majority of the population have seen their incomes stagnate or fall. But the US is only the worst example of this, globally less than 0.001 % of the population, that is 60 0000 multimillionaires, now control more wealth than the poorest 50 % of humanity.<\/p>\n

And not only has this kind of globalization caused social misery and conflict, it has also destroyed much of the global environment on which the future of humankind depends. My conclusion is that if we want to save humanity and the world, we cannot turn our backs on globalization and rules-based multilateral cooperation, but when resurrecting this order we need to profoundly change its rules, while using our existing universal instruments such as the UN, the WTO and the host of lesser well known but equally necessary international organisations.<\/p>\n

We need this to counter the existential threats of nuclear war, climate change and loss of nature but also to deal with and dismantle the indecent concentrations of wealth and power in the world today.<\/p>\n

This entails to begin with giving a fair share of the voting rights and other privileges to the Global South in all of these organisations, ending the Western de facto monopoly which still prevails in many of these, making them work more transparently and eliminating the corrupt influence of Transnational Companies which distort their policies. No double standards are acceptable, all violations of international law and rules, all human rights violations and crimes against humanity have to be sanctioned in the same manner regardless of where and by who they are committed.<\/p>\n

It also entails recognizing the right of countries to regulate work, investment and threats to their culture and environment with more leeway than present rules grant, as long as they are implemented in a non-discriminatory manner and do not harm the environment.<\/p>\n

Finally, I want to say, that while the kind of reglobalization I am advocating may sound like the antitheses of deglobalization, I believe that in fact we share the same aims and values even if we differ on how we see that they can be realistically implemented.<\/p>\n

**Erkki Tuomioja: <\/strong>Founder, Historians without Borders & Former Minister, Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Erkki Tuomioja [Remarks at the Development Days Conference on Walden Bello\u2019s keynote lecture, \u201cRevisiting Deglobalization in an Era of Geopolitical Competition,\u201d University of Helsinki, 26 February 2026] We are witnessing today the breakdown of the rules-based World Order, as it was established and developed after WW II on the basis of the UN Charter. …<\/p>\n

Deglobalization or Reglobalization?<\/span> Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":20,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2266","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2266","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/20"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2266"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2266\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2271,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2266\/revisions\/2271"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2266"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2266"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.kehitystutkimus.fi\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2266"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}